I think votes still run the show, and money is just a means to get more of them.
But anything that can greatly influence public opinion and how the public votes can still effect change.
Why can't they just leave us alone?
- Thread starter AngelsBreath
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- vamo
- Status
But anything that can greatly influence public opinion and how the public votes can still effect change.
I think it was Mark Twain who said... "If voting Really Mattered, they Wouldn't let you do it."
Trust me on this. Once e-Cigarettes are Regulated, Heavily Taxed and in the Complete Control of Big Business, politicians across this Great Land of ours will say how Great they are and how they have Always been in favor of them.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
It was Emma Goldman, an anarchist of some kind or another (probably depends who you ask...)
It was Emma Goldman, an anarchist of some kind or another (probably depends who you ask...)
I don't have an ideologically driven position on second hand smoke, except insofar as I believe that science works as a process, even if it makes mistakes along the way. I recognise that science can be biased, or just flat out wrong, for all kinds of reasons.
Presumably you came to the conclusions you have because of evidence you saw, or persuasive argument. All I'm asking is to see the evidence, or to hear the argument, and I don't think that's unreasonable.
I'm not asking you to refute every study I posted, that was just a 'flavour' of the studies out there, a starting point. If you know some of them to be flawed, then tell me the flaws. If you know of better studies, link them. If you are tired of writing this stuff over and over again, why not write a blog or something, and point people to that? You obviously believe in this passionately, and I presume if you're engaging in debate about it still despite all the stress that can entail, you want to convince people of the logic of your position.
Last edited:
If that was true, then why were the ANTZ writing the laws and the legislators looking to the ANTZ for answers when we confronted them? Who is this "larger hand" pushing the ANTZ around, other than Big Pharma financing their agenda for its own agenda?
The ANTZ may want tobacco and nicotine banned, but there are many in their official ranks (tobacco control antis, but not true ANTZ) that are happy with the status quo, because it pays and keeps on paying.
The only reason I specifically mentioned "genetic mutant" was because he was the only one posting those studies to which I was specifically referring - especially that last list that I hadn't addressed directly, because the studies he posted fit the exactly what I was talking about. So I was, in a way, addressing his last post. I was not "calling him out" because of his "views," but simply mentioned him because HOW he was trying to argue and defend his point is what so many other people do. I see it on ECF all of the time and his beliefs and the basis for those beliefs are actually far more common here, which is what I see as a huge part of the problem. I suppose I could have just responded to his list and broken down (once again) why those studies in no way supported his argument, but that seemed futile at the time. I was just trying to multi-task with one post.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." Emma Goldman
That it was Twain... But close enough for the point I was making.
You didn't expect Big Tobacco to just stand by and let Big Pharma scoop up all the Profits did you? And why would Big Tobacco like seeing Nicotine Extract Profits all going to China?
If I had to Name another player in a Pawn pushing game, Big Tobacco would be the Usually Suspect.
It's been abundantly clear over the last few years that Big Pharma has been funding the ANTZ movements.
But it is also clear now that Big Tobacco has stepped in with their own agenda.
I like that CASAA is said to be working with Big Tobacco to try and give them a different point of view.
I would love to hear how that is going, but I am generally unable to attend the Sunday meetings due to family obligations.
As a P.S., because I failed to acknowledge this in the post above -
I have two links so far (I think...), the Surgeon General's report and the BMJ one. I am reading them, but obviously it takes time (particularly the Surgeon General one is pretty hefty...)
I have two links so far (I think...), the Surgeon General's report and the BMJ one. I am reading them, but obviously it takes time (particularly the Surgeon General one is pretty hefty...)
He won't touch this issue (he can't!). The poor Statist, he is reduced to digging up agenda-driven studies which justify abuse of private property rights "for the defense of children" or "for the public health". If he can just show you how darned dangerous that cigarette smoke is, it will be okay to restrict private property rights of citizens to the uses HE sees as "safe".
That is complete hogwash! You either believe in private property rights, or you don't. Remember that guys! You have to defend the other person's right to use his or her property legally every time, even when it is an activity you don't support!
OK then.
Shows that banning smoking lowered nicotine bio-marker found in blood. Doesn't provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death.
Assumes SHS causes disease and then estimates the number of people who could get those diseases or die. Doesn't provide evidence SHS actually ever caused any disease or death.
Concludes exposure to SHS COULD be associated with increased blood lead levels in U.S. children. Doesn't provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death or that lead increases at those levels would actually lead to disease or death.
Another estimate of how many deaths are caused by SHS while assuming that any deaths are actually caused by SHS exposure. Doesn't provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death.
Absolute garbage published by Stan Glantz, a known ANTZ who also believes in banning smoking from movies and editing historical photos and paintings to remove evidence of smoking. Not only doesn't this study provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death, but make the ridiculous conclusion that while it's known that it takes years of actual smoking to have it "cause" heart disease, a few whiffs of SHS will cause heart disease and heart attacks in bystanders!
This study relied on people remembering how much SHS they were exposed to as children (median age was 62 years old) and 79% of the subjects (cancer patients) were either ex-smokers or current smokers. The adjusted odds ratio for lung cancer was 1.30(1.08-1.57) when exposure occurred between birth and age 25, which means that those exposed during that period were 1.3 times (30%) more likely to get cancer. Oddly, while non-smokers exposed during that period were 29% more likely to get cancer, current and ex-smokers exposed to SHS during that period were only 28% more likely to get cancer. Note this does NOT mean that people exposed to SHS have a 30% chance of getting cancer, only that they were 30% MORE LIKELY to get it than those not exposed. It doesn't even double the risk. Again, this study doesn't provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death, just discusses hypothetical risks elevations under specific circumstances.
Shows that exposure to SHS elevated nicotine -marker (cotinine), which shows that they were, indeed, possibly exposed to SHS. A hazard ratio
= 1.38 [95% confidence interval = 1.01–1.90]) from cardiovascular diseases, all circulatory diseases (1.28 [0.98–1.69]), and coronary heart disease (1.31 [0.83–2.08] including 95% confidence interval levels being nearly at or below 1.0 makes these results pretty much statistically insignificant. Doesn't provide evidence that SHS actually ever caused any disease or death.
Last edited:
Technically? Neither.
Technically ... Still sure wouldn't want a kid of mine to start smoking tobacco.
EDIT: sorry, above quote was in response to "which is worse, this or tobacco?"
Last edited:
Ah, but there you made a distinction between just "tobacco" and SMOKING tobacco and there is a huge difference. The science shows smoke-free tobacco has far less health risks than smoking and we suspect vaping to be nearly as safe as smoke-free tobacco. So we can say truthfully that vaping is probably better than SMOKING, but its probably about the same as smoke-free tobacco.
We can probably agree that I have the right to buy hazardous chemicals of some kinds. And then I can handle them in as safe or unsafe (to me at any rate) way as I feel like.
Do you agree that industries that handle these chemicals require legally enforced minimum safety standards, to protect their workers from risks that are not *inherent* to handling them?
Elsevier
He claims the effect is fairly consistently demonstrated;
Note though, some of those six are his own metaanalyses.
Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Having a quick scan through, there's quite a lot of supporting evidence that hasn't come from him.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=passive+smoking+heart+epidemiology+meta
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=passive+smoking+heart+epidemiology+meta
This isn't a subject I've studied directly, so you'll forgive me for having to approach points one by one, and sometimes slowly.
Last edited:
(Edited: I spoke with Carl and my numbers were off, so disregard.)
Here is some more reading: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
And this was from one of your own links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16399662
"When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and results are appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from coronary heart disease (CHD) in never smokers. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the association."
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
